N THE MATTER HELD BEFORE THE NBCCI OF THE GAUTENG
PROVINCE, HELD IN JOHANNESBURG
Case number GPCHEM
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION OF CONDONATION APPLICATION
I, CCCC, hereby declare under oath as follows:
I am an adult female, in the employ of the Respondent and hold the position of
Human Resources Business Partner.
In the course and scope of my position, I was involved in some of the disputes and
grievances declared by the Applicant against various employees of the Respondent
as well as the transfer of the Applicant during the latter part of 2013, which forms part
of the dispute referred to the National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industries
(NBCCI), dated 22 February 2016 and received by me on 23 February 2016.
I am duly authorised to depose to this affidavit on behalf of the Respondent The facts
herein after contained fall within my personal knowledge and belief, unless indicated
otherwise or inconsistent with the context, which facts are both true and correct.
I have read the application for unfair labour practice and unilateral change of
conditions of employment and the application for condonation of the applicant and
wish to oppose it on the basis as set out herein.
The Applicant referred to two different disputes in item 3 of NBCCI Form 1, stating
that the dispute is about unilateral change in her terms and conditions of employment
and an unfair labour practice. She then proceeds to quote instances of discrimination
(racism) and victimisation.
I am advised, which advice I accept, that a claim of unfair discrimination (racism) is
does fall within the jurisdiction of the NBCCI, but with the Labour Court.
I am further advised that an unfair labour practice as defined by section 186(2) of the
Labour Relations Act, 65 of 1995, does not include any act of unfair discrimination
and the fact that both have been cited does not have the result of creating jurisdiction
over the matter, where such jurisdiction has been excluded per legislation.
I refer the Commissioner to Labour Court case of Dudley v City of Cape Town &
another (2004) 13 LC 1.19.1 where the Court found as follows on the issue: